281–290 of 376 posts
The 'ideal' drug from a business point of view not only not cures the patient long term, it offer a short term mitigation while increasing the risk on relapse and thus future recurring consumption of the treatment. At the same time it can be IP protected to block alternatives and has an insured third party collective payment coverage to guard against the treated running out of funds to afford the perpetual dependency…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
R&D doesn't happen in non-profit government corporations either (atleast not largely). Most R&D comes from the manufacturers where the state (or relevant institution) buys the drugs from. However, in a single payer or similar systems, if a drug company decides to hike the price, the state (or institution) can swallow the cost and continue medical services to citizens until the situation is resolved (either by legisla…
> R&D doesn't happen in non-profit government corporations either (atleast not largely). Most R&D comes from the manufacturers where the state (or relevant institution) buys the drugs from. IIRC, the research typically comes from state-funded academics, and the development comes from the manufacturers.
The 'ideal' drug from a business point of view not only not cures the patient long term, it offer a short term mitigation while increasing the risk on relapse and thus future recurring consumption of the treatment. At the same time it can be IP protected to block alternatives and has an insured third party collective payment coverage to guard against the treated running out of funds to afford the perpetual dependency…
So we agree medicine cannot be managed as a business, right? It's ok if healthcare losses money, in fact it should be ok for all public sevices to operate and not being profitable.
I dont know enough to have an educated opinion on healthcare regulation or on social services...but its disengenuous to claim that medicine cant be managed as a business when its already so heavily regulated that it barely looks like a normal business.
I would agree that the current model is super messed up...but maybe managing it like a business without all the government intervention and IP laws is the better solution here... maybe not...i dont know...but you definitely cant support your conclusion from the current environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's not true. Private R&D is almost 10x what public R&D is, at least in biotech.
Nope - that's not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research#Privately_(in... Private R&D is around 60% - however a large part of that is making minor changes to existing molecules in order to obtain fresh patents.The bigger, riskier research is done by the NIH and other publicly funded bodies. See https://marianamazzucato.com/entrepreneurial-state/ Also - the quality of privately funded research is much wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if both company A and B (correctly) assess that they will reap more profits by investing in chronic treatment even when a one-shot cure is possible.
No, because that's an unstable equilibrium. If you are company B, you know you can steal 100% of the business by finding a cure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The toothbrush is meant to remove a growing living substance, namely bacteria. The shotgun cleaner is meant to removal particles. After a period of time the toothbrush too will become a colony of bacteria. It will then add to the existing problem or at least offer no benefit. This is why you should change them so often. The shotgun cleaner is not used to remove bacteria primarily and will not suffer the same issue pr…
That's the standard reply. However, people with dentures don't change them every 3 weeks. There are perfectly sane way to disinfect/clean these sort of things on a long term basis. You could imagine leaving your brush in a cleaning solution. Here they purposely make the brushes useless mechanically as the bristles deform to a point they are no longer usable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because that's an unstable equilibrium. If you are company B, you know you can steal 100% of the business by finding a cure.
You can theorise all you want, but the world is rife with examples of what I said being true. As always, experiment must trump theory.
Do you have examples of situations where cures have been suppressed in favor of expensive long-term treatments? Especially in a competitive environment, where there were multiple players offering competing long-term treatments that were both aware of cures?
Preferably this would be something supported by leaked or court documents, but independent investigations would also be interesting. I understand this is a high burden of proof, but everything I've seen seems to indicate that this is an urban myth. I certainly couldn't find any specific cases in a cursory search.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's not true. Private R&D is almost 10x what public R&D is, at least in biotech.
Nope - that's not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research#Privately_(in... Private R&D is around 60% - however a large part of that is making minor changes to existing molecules in order to obtain fresh patents.The bigger, riskier research is done by the NIH and other publicly funded bodies. See https://marianamazzucato.com/entrepreneurial-state/ Also - the quality of privately funded research is much wo…
In theory, market will drive things so the cost of one-shot cure will become equal to the capitalized cost of life-long therapy. Either by making the former more expensive, or the latter cheaper. Until the latter becomes a direct money loser.
I've long been of the opinion that "free market fundamentalists" are more than anything intellectually lazy people.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not attacking you personally. I wouldn't think that a single post on HN sums up the entire thought process of a person, obviously. But that are people for which that observation is entirely applicable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we agree medicine cannot be managed as a business, right? It's ok if healthcare losses money, in fact it should be ok for all public sevices to operate and not being profitable.
The problem here is not business interests its the IP protections that keep the pressure from being applied by the marketplace. I dont know enough to have an educated opinion on healthcare regulation or on social services...but its disengenuous to claim that medicine cant be managed as a business when its already so heavily regulated that it barely looks like a normal business. I would agree that the current model is…